She cut them off after 21 seconds and then went into a heated complaint, including calling what they're doing "bullshit"
> She asked for details, and they didn't have any details for her.
Once someone becomes this heated, the only real option is to reschedule a followup call after the person has had time to cool down. Nothing good would have come from delving into details of her performance, even though she already admitted and acknowledged that she hadn't closed any sales.
I don't think anything will make HN commenters happy, but what would you actually have wanted to hear? If they had instead said "We're cutting you for no good reason" the comments section would be complaining about that instead.
Her reaction is perfectly normal and as a manager or HR rep you're basically there to be yelled at on behalf of the company, as the company is not actually a person and it's not satisfying to yell at the abstract concept of Cloudflare that just fired you.
Scheduling a followup call feels like an incredibly low-EQ move
It was Bullshit, textbook bullshit : https://press.princeton.edu/books/hardcover/9780691122946/on....
First, if they are doing layoffs, shouldn't they expect people to be pissed off, and be prepared to handle that? I don't think the call was heated at all, but maybe it's a cultural difference. It could be that American corporate drones in general are less tolerant of conflict.
Second, why not include someone she knew on the call, instead of two people she had never met before? It's a total power move. If they had her direct boss included, or started out with a reason why it was just the two of them, that probably would have helped.
Third, the fact that others were getting laid off besides just her tells me that it was not solely a performance issue. It was a corporate level cost saving measure, combined with a performance issue. Had they admitted to that, instead of laying the blame on her, it would have been fine for me. She probably would not have been happy, but I personally would not agree with her posting a video where they said that.
Finally, I'm not sure what this stereotypical "HN commenter" is, but if you bring it up again, I may have to consider that you're not actually trying to engage with my arguments and instead dismissing me as a sockpuppet or something.
Second - I'm not sure I'd call the choice of call participants a "power move", just standard American hyper-legally-conscious practice. Surprise layoffs or pip firings are usually done with an HRBP you've probably never met before leading the call. Sometimes the manager may be there but frequently they won't talk much or at all.
Third - Not necessarily. The others may have been struggling to close sales as well. The only things I know about this whole thing come from reading the text in the OP and watching the tiktok video so I could easily be missing it, but is there any evidence that this is anything other than letting go of sales people who aren't performing? I think this is extremely common in sales, it's pretty cutthroat. You close deals or you don't, and companies are always asking "what have you done for me lately?"
Oh, you poor things.
> She cut them off after 21 seconds and then went into a heated complaint, including calling what they're doing "bullshit"
There's nothing "heated" about confronting deception -- that's just setting healthy boundaries and, hopefully, giving the other person room to grow as a human being.
She established that her supervisor's feedback for her was that she had done "a great job". If that was not the case, the people letting her go would have asserted that this claim is false.
If I try to interpret their words charitably (that is, if I pretend that when they said "you have not met CloudFlare's expectations for performance" they really meant was something quite different), it would seem that they are letting her go because:
1) CloudFlare has decided that it is financially in their best interest to layoff enough people to reduce payroll by $X, and
2) They tried to pick some objective criteria (even if misguided and/or unfair in practice) to pick who to let go, and she met that criteria. For all we know, they may have taken a spreadsheet of everyone with her job title, sorted by sales per month, then sorted by name to break ties, and then laid off the bottom people.
In this scenario, saying "we're letting you go because of your performance" is not only untrue, it's also an incredibly insensitive, tone-deaf cop out.
Yes, performance may have been involved in the calculus of who to let go, but the actual underlying cause of her termination is that they have decided that it's in CloudFlare's best interest to reduce payroll. She wasn't under-performing, so it is, in fact, bullshit for CloudFlare to use that as the reason for her termination, and then equivocate when asked for a single example of her not meeting expectations.
> Once someone becomes this heated [...]
Again, she's not "heated". She is (reasonably) offended that they would lie to her face to deflect responsibility for her termination onto her.
> [...] the only real option is to reschedule a followup call after the person has had time to cool down.
No. The only thing to do is take ownership of the situation they have put her in and the incredibly offensive way they broke the news to her.
> [...] but what would you actually have wanted to hear? If they had instead said "We're cutting you for no good reason" the comments section would be complaining about that instead.
No. If they said that, it would also be a lie.
The appropriate thing to say is pretty easy: you speak the truth.
I can give a condensed, paraphrased version of what I was told two days ago (and, admittedly, what I was told verbatim was more tactful than what I'll produce here, but this is infinitely better than the schlock she was told):
"We regret to inform you that we will be terminating your employment. It's not fair. It's not a failing on your part. We want to be clear that this termination is not a firing; your role is being eliminated as part of layoffs. Ultimately, we have decided that we have over-hired with respect to the current economic climate."
You've probably noted that I didn't mention performance indicators at all, despite them (probably) being used to sort some spreadsheet and layoff people that met and/or exceeded the expectations of their title yet sorted at the bottom (vs a random sampling). Why? Because it's irrelevant in that conversation. What would mentioning it achieve? For new hires, it says nothing, as they hadn't been there long enough. For others, the implication is that if they had overworked themselves then maybe they would still have a job, which is a dick thing to imply. So really, the only positive thing that can come out mentioning it is that the people informing her that her income is about to be $0.00 can feel justified, thus soothing their conscience -- but anyone with a shred of social skill and empathy would know that this isn't the time nor place.
Being laid off sucks, but the problem here isn't that she was laid off. It's clear that isn't what upset her. What's wrong in that video is one (or both) of:
1) These people copping out with bullshit, trying to spin a layoff as a firing, and/or
2) These people having such piss-poor empathy and communication skills that they can't see that what they said was a slap in her face
FWIW, the HR people did assert this claim was false but said they weren't able to go into specifics. That's the central issue that makes this somewhat murky. If companies prioritized employee wellbeing, then they'd release this information, but they prioritize not getting sued or opening themselves up to criticism.
Honestly, I think the manager deserves more criticism here. There's a world where both sides are telling the truth. It's pretty common for managers to give positive feedback to underperforming employees (as part of empathetic communication). Also, managers do have a say in layoffs. The excuse is always that managers didn't know until right before the layoffs, but they still have input at that stage. They're not laying people off or firing them behind the manager's back.
Edit: I'd also point out that she says she's been receiving positive feedback despite not meeting standards. Her reasons for such are that one deal died through no fault of her own and that the holidays are tough for deal-making. She is making the argument that the standards say one thing while the expectations (feedback) say another. Aligning standards and expectations would fall under the manager's duties. Because, again, HR drones aren't going to be knowledgeable about the ins and outs of sales.
Not always.
The manager might completely disagree on the termination.
The manager might be being punished for not terminating underperformers so higher ups stepped in.
I guess my point is don't underestimate the amount of dysfunction in management.
She said that multiple coworkers had been let go earlier that day. Also, this is happening just as news breaks about layoffs at CloudFlare.
So I will invoke Occam's razor: which is more likely?
- CloudFlare decided to layoff employees while also firing multiple employees on the same day, back-to-back
- They somehow came to the conclusion that these people were under-performing all around the same time, and that they should all be fired at the same time.
- Her boss decides not to participate in her exit call.
- Despite her receiving positive feedback, she was actually not meeting the expectations of her role.
Or this:
- When her boss said she was doing well, she was actually doing well
- CloudFlare wanted to layoff employees, but they didn't want to pay out severance and assist with benefits.
- But that doesn't look good, so in order to save face they try to justify everyone's termination by claiming they under-performed. Now they can say that these employees were fired.
- However, they are fully aware that it is common knowledge that layoffs are usually conducted as one massive group meeting with all parties at once (this is usually done because, with everyone being let go all at once, this minimizes the window where a vengeful employee could try to harm the company using their internal access -- trying to have one-on-one exits with each person's manager would be infeasible here, given the many-to-one relationship).
- To keep up appearances CloudFlare chose to have small, rapid-fire exit meetings (conducted by HR) with those being let go, instead of meeting with their boss. (I would bet money that they probably conducted these meetings in parallel to try and quickly clear out employees before word could spread far, to further minimize the window of possible vengeful reaction.)
It's incredibly plain to me that the latter is so, so much more likely. I'm already disgusted enough by the objective details (that is, leaving all interpretation aside), it's only that much worse if it truly is a regular occurrence for CloudFlare to hire a bunch of individuals, praise their work, and then later decide that they weren't all that great (which is an admission that CF is both incompetent at hiring and management), terminate them (with no PIP) all without their boss present.
Are you making the case that CloudFlare is really that incompetent and mismanaged?
> FWIW, the HR people did assert this claim was false but said they weren't able to go into specifics.
Making a contradictory assertion is very different than asserting that her claim is false. It doesn't matter that logically, sure, the latter is implied by the former -- they are still two very different things when it comes to human communication.
For instance, if you say "Wow, what a lovely blue sky!" and I respond with "Yeah, never seen a better green sky before. Love it.", and then you respond with "Green? What? It's clearly blue. And apart from sunset/sunrise and pollution resulting in a a red or orange sky, it's always been blue. So... I'm confused." to which I respond "I get that you feel that way. Totally understandable. All I'm saying is, you know, I love this glorious green sky over our heads right now."
In that hypothetical, I've managed to equivocate around the contradiction with non sequitur. That's not me claiming that you're wrong, which would then require me to provide a reasonable argument. Instead, I leave you to wonder if I don't see the apparent contradiction, or if I do but I'm just not engaging with you for some reason, etc. It's a shitty way to communicate with someone, and really isn't much better than simply stonewalling.
> I'd also point out that she says she's been receiving positive feedback despite not meeting standards.
I don't think that's what she was doing. My reading of the situation, if I put myself in her shoes: her execution was perfectly acceptable and she got only positive feedback from her boss, and so she felt deeply wronged by the incongruent claims made during her exit. Given the asymmetric power dynamic (they can just hang up on her at any point and happily go on their way, leaving her with zero closure), panic set in -- time is ticking, and she wants to have them verbally recognize they were in the wrong; to not have them admit to wrongdoing before the conclusion of the call would further emphasize their power to mistreat her, which would likely crater her emotional state (as it would mine). While she should have probably left it at "my boss, who is responsible for assessing my performance, thinks (and has told me) that I've done a great job, so could you provide any justification for telling me anything otherwise right now? No? Alright. You've admitted to not acting in good faith, and it wouldn't be fruitful to discuss this with you any further, so I won't." she instead tries to provide objective details in hopes that they'll actively address something that she's saying: she was on a 3 month ramp (where sales are not expected) followed by maybe three weeks to make a sale in a month where making one sale would be extraordinary, and despite all of that she still almost managed to make a sale.
I don't see that as under-performing and then making an excuse for doing so, and I'm not entirely sure how anyone can see it that way. My best guess is that evidently, in her panic, she gives excessive details and she has adrenaline jitters from the panic she's feeling (from both the aforementioned timing/power aspect, but also because most people find it incredibly stressful to engage in even mild mannered, respectful confrontation -- my pulse shoots up to around 150 bpm just thinking about it), which some seem to interpret as her being "heated", "emotional" and/or making excuses, but I'm not entirely sure.
> Aligning standards and expectations would fall under the manager's duties. Because, again, HR drones aren't going to be knowledgeable about the ins and outs of sales.
That's already enough of a problem. The thought of that is incredibly offensive, and it would also be the height of cowardice for a boss to have someone else fire one of their reports for them. I hope that isn't what you see as the norm, as that certainly isn't what I have seen in practice.
Again, the simpler explanation is that CloudFlare wanted to have its cake and eat it too: decrease payroll, minimize risk of harm to the company, and try (in vain) to save face by passing off a layoff as firings (to justify not giving severance and minimize negative sentiment for more layoffs).
It just doesn’t matter. Arguing with HR gets you nowhere. It’s self-destructive drama for likes.
If you genuinely believed that you were being let go for something that was completely fabricated, would you not confront them? Is there ever an appropriate time to speak up? For instance, if they also attributed the fruits of your labor to someone else, and then compared you to that other person to justify your termination, would you just remain silent?
I don’t see how having a backbone is self-destructive.
